One of the hurdles the industry faces in converting the first time track visitor and new would be racing fan into a long term horseplayer is the severity of the negative gambling experience imprinted during those first few track visits.
How bad is it (really?)
If WPS takeout is 16% you might think the novice horseplayer, who doesn't know a thing about betting horses, and whose selections therefore might realistically be no better or no worse than random picks, should have an expected return no worse than 84 cents per each $1.00 wagered (1.00 minus the takeout percentage) right?
You might intuitively think that - but you'd be wrong.
Believe it or not, the true long term mathematical expectation of horse race bettors who make the equivalent of random selections in WPS pools is a net loss approaching 25 cents per each $1.00 wagered.
That's approximately 1.5 times worse than the percentage net loss most of us might intuitively think results from a 16 percent takeout rate!
Below is a cut and paste of some numbers pulled from my calendar year 2013 database. The database includes every thoroughbred race run in North America during calendar year 2013 from Jan 01, 2013 current through a few days ago Dec 08, 2013.
The top part of the data readout shows what would have happened to the player unfortunate enough to have bet $2.00 to WPS on every starter in every race during the time period covered by the database (approx 350k starters in all.)
The ROI numbers towards the bottom of the WPS columns reflect the return for each $1.00 wagered: Net losses bordering on minus 25 percent for WPS bets.
Data Window Settings: Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb 999 Divisor Odds Cap: None SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY WHERE [DATE] >= #01-01-2013# AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013# ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE Data Summary Win Place Show ----------------------------------------------------- Mutuel Totals 529184.70 529707.00 531006.60 Bet -699134.00 -699134.00 -699134.00 ----------------------------------------------------- P/L -169949.30 -169427.00 -168127.40 Wins 45440 90386 131813 Plays 349567 349567 349567 PCT .1300 .2586 .3771 ROI 0.7569 0.7577 0.7595 Avg Mut 11.65 5.86 4.03
Next up, the second part of the above sample with the data broken out by odds rank with no attempt to break ties:
By: Odds Rank Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 -14901.00 93348.00 0.8404 17228 46674 .3691 2.8396 2 -15208.70 88526.00 0.8282 9642 44263 .2178 1.6758 3 -18372.90 88404.00 0.7922 6540 44202 .1480 1.1382 4 -18563.50 88650.00 0.7906 4681 44325 .1056 0.8124 5 -22870.40 87296.00 0.7380 3078 43648 .0705 0.5425 6 -22460.60 81236.00 0.7235 2034 40618 .0501 0.3852 7 -20465.90 65288.00 0.6865 1155 32644 .0354 0.2722 8 -14106.40 46530.00 0.6968 616 23265 .0265 0.2037 9 -10315.90 30140.00 0.6577 294 15070 .0195 0.1501 10 -8129.40 17866.00 0.5450 110 8933 .0123 0.0947 11 -2351.20 7388.00 0.6818 46 3694 .0125 0.0958 12 -1884.80 3616.00 0.4788 13 1808 .0072 0.0553 13 -245.60 578.00 0.5751 2 289 .0069 0.0532 14 -63.00 258.00 0.7558 1 129 .0078 0.0596 15 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000 16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000 17 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000 18 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000 19+ -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
This part of the data sample shows the favorite-longshot bias and hints at why horse racing might be at least attractive to some players from a viable gambling standpoint.
Note that win rate and roi (or player's expectation) varies with the odds.
The player who makes a serious go at studying the past performance records of horses will discover that horses have both positive attributes and negative attributes in their records. Positive attributes incrementally increase the likelihood of strong placings. Conversely, negative attributes result in incrementally worsened placings. Of course, the betting public realizes this and a high percentage of those attributes (as collectively seen by the crowd) are reflected in the odds.
I don't think there's any question that the newbie would be horseplayer faces a steep uphill climb. But most of us assume the hill to be climbed is 1.00 minus the takeout rate. (As you can see from the above numbers that is clearly not the case.)
In my mind getting people out to the track by itself isn't going to cut it.
The real question as I see it is this:
How do you create a good enough GAMBLING EXPERIENCE for the new would be horseplayer to make them want to come back for more?... A LOT MORE? (Enough to where the "fan" turns into a horseplayer?)
In my mind the most probable way the new would be race goer gets converted from a casual fan into a horseplayer is the same transformation process most of us underwent ourselves.
How I Became a Horseplayer
Speaking from personal experience and strictly for myself, 30 plus years ago when I first began looking at horse racing data:
I studied some data and noticed certain things in the data suggesting a realistic shot at break even play and beyond. And because of that I made the shift from "fan" to horseplayer. For me that conversion process did not happen overnight. It took about two years.
I'd like to point out that had I not seen anything early on in the data to suggest break even play was even possible I never would have taken up betting horses in a serious way. My first early visits to the track were at Turf Paradise back in 1981-1982. I initially began going to the races with a group of about a dozen friends who - one by one - dropped out by attending less and less frequently.
By 1984 I realized I was the ONLY one left from my original group. Everyone else had stopped going.
Oh, I'm still in touch with many from that same group. We've gone on many a camping trip, have gotten together for ski weekends in Utah and Tahoe, trips to Las Vegas, have rented beach houses in San Diego, etc., but largely as a direct result of the negative gambling experience imprinted on them - no one from that same group other than myself has expressed even the slightest bit of interest in a day spent betting on horses.
The game was different back then. In my opinion things were easier for the would be horseplayer.
When I first started betting horses in a serious way there were still crowds of people at the track - and many among that crowd were there for a good time... Hell, I remember being in my 20's and striking up conversations with LOTS of people whose betting was based on birthdays and phone numbers. (Good luck finding people at the races doing that today.)
The numbers in the above data sample paint a realistic picture as to the severity of the negative gambling experience faced by the new would be horseplayer.
Keep in mind the above data is WPS only. (FYI, it's worse for exotics... MUCH WORSE.)
I would be curious about the transformation process any of you underwent during your own conversions from "fan" to horseplayer. (Feel free to drop me a line at email@example.com)
Racing's Long Term Handle Trend
According to statistics at The Jockey Club website, North American thoroughbred handle peaked at $15.9 billion back in 2003. The trend has been down sharply ever since.
If the long term handle trend in North America over the past 10 years or so wasn't off by one third or more (not adjusted for inflation) I wouldn't be writing about takeout.
However, I think the long term downward handle trend is alarming. I also think it's crystal clear that insisting on takeout rates that create net losses bordering on minus 25 percent for bettors making random selections in WPS pools plays a big big part in shaping that trend.
According to economic studies commissioned by The Jockey Club we've stopped creating enough new horseplayers to replace the ones who are leaving the game each year. (The last one that I read says the net loss now averages 4% per year.)
The crowd attending the races when I first started going isn't there anymore. And as was so eloquently pointed out by one poster in a thread at paceadvantage.com in this post about getting people out to the track
"Guys don't worry about it.........nobody new is coming"
How Many Zeroes?
Today you still have that same crowd, the 20 and 30 somethings I used to see at the track - only now they are in the casino - where instead of minus 25 percent for WPS they are betting on games of chance where the prize payout percentages offered are significantly higher.
The built in house edge for roulette is 5.26%. I'll use that for example purposes because roulette is generally considered to be one of the worst gambling games you can play in a casino. If you study the layout of a roulette table, you'll quickly realize it's those two 'zeroes' that create the house edge and make roulette the bad gamble that it is.
Q. How many 'zeroes' do you have to add to a roulette wheel to turn roulette into the equivalent of what a newbie horse bettor faces? (Where random WPS selections produce long term net losses bordering on minus 25 percent?)
A. Believe it or not you have to add TEN ADDITIONAL ZEROES - until the layout itself has TWELVE ZEROES ON IT! – in order to turn roulette into the equivalent gamble (net losses of minus 25 percent) faced by a horse bettor making random WPS selections at 16 percent takeout!
TWELVE zeroes! (Mull that over for a few minutes until it sinks in.)
No one in their right mind is going to spend any serious amount of time immersed in study trying to develop a system to beat a roulette wheel with TWELVE freaking zeroes on it. (Can we at least agree on that much?)
While I agree that "marketing" can and will get new "fans" out to the track...
How can anyone in their right mind think that takeout isn't a huge part of the problem?...
That "marketing" alone is all it takes to convert "fans" into horseplayers?...
When what we are marketing, from a prize payout standpoint, is a gamble equivalent to a roulette table with twelve freaking zeroes on it?
I humbly submit to you the idea that no amount of marketing will ever be successful selling THAT.
In my mind the only way to convert first time race goers into long term horseplayers is to give them a realistic sense they can win.
How do we do that (with a straight face) given the above numbers?